New York
20. Oct. 2006

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as source of inspiration for a Parliamentary Dimension of the United Nations

General Assembly, 61st Session, Plenary Session. Statement by National Councilor Andreas Gross, Member of the Swiss Parliament / Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Madam President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen

Please let me first express my gratitude to the government of Switzerland, which allowed me to speak at its place without having to speak in its name. I have the honor to address you as a Swiss MP and a member of the Swiss Delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

I am proud to do this for the second time because, following quietly the General Assembly’s deliberations from the sidelines up there ten years ago, I supported back home the idea of a citizens initiative for Switzerland to join the United Nations and to correct the first negative vote of 20 years ago – a political project which as you know turned out to be successful in 2002.

Madam President

As you know, the UN and the Council of Europe are children of the same catastrophically experiences and tried to draw the same lessons from them: They joined the nation’s forces to establish an intergovernmental political body in order to prevent similar disasters to happen again.

The Council of Europe’s ten founding states (Turkey was part of them, Switzerland needed then also a little bit more time) followed the founders of the UN four years later. But they took from the beginning the common introductory reference to our respective founding charters more seriously. The CoE translated the reference “We the People ….” not only into the forming of a governmental body composed by Ambassadors representing Governments – the so called Committee of Ministers - but created also a Parliamentary Assembly of Members of the national Parliaments, thus associating directly elected representatives of these Peoples to the supranational political efforts.

The political will of the pioneers of the European Integration process was at that time also strong enough to create in Strasbourg the European Court for Human Rights, to which since 1959 every citizen of a Council of Europe member-state – today nearly 800 million people in soon to be 47 states – can address complaints against the rulings of their highest national courts for violations of the European Convention for Human Rights. The decisions of the ECHR have to be respected by the authorities of every state – a unique creation of a supranational authority accessible for Hundreds of Millions of People. It showed how courageous the European pioneers have been, how far they have been ready to go in order to overcome the atrocities of nation-states not yet civilized by Human Rights and international law.

In the context of last years Council of Europe’s summit one of the foreign Ministers considered the Parliamentary Assembly to be “the true engine of the Council of Europe”. And the Prime Minister of Luxemburg showed this Spring in his report, that it was the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE which was much more than others the true defender of the basic values and more courageous and innovative than other bodies of the Institutions. And a report on the institutional balance of the CoE, which was discussed just two weeks ago in the week long autumn session of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, our Austrian colleague Peter Schieder, who is also present here today, stated, that it is “the first embodiment of the progress of the democratic spirit in the international relations.”

I would like to underline that the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE is not a simple annex to a primarily governmental organization which meets only some days in a year, listens to officials and decides on some resolutions. The Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE is a genuine transnational Parliament which meets four times a year for a whole week, works in between in ten committees which meet about six times additionally to the sessions meetings and to which resolutions and recommendations the Committee of Ministers is obliged to answer and to reply. This created not only in over 200 conventions a genuine pan-European space with a common understanding of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, but also a genuine transnational parliamentary discourse, exchange and learning process, which is able not only to bring legitimacy to transnational law and policy making but is also able to shape directly national legislations and governmental accountability.

Madam President

You are certainly aware why I tried to show you the usefulness and the great merits of the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE, of a Parliamentary Assembly of an international organization, which was created to represent the Peoples. I would like to suggest further deliberations on lessons we could learn from this successful pan European experience for the introduction of an elaborated parliamentary dimension of the UN:

•    A parliamentary dimension which is more ambitious than the respective bodies and other international organizations;

•    A parliamentary dimension which is integrated into the structures of the UN, interacts on the basis of especially designed procedures with the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretary General and which might provide it with legitimacy only elected MP’s may provide;

•    A parliamentary dimension which lets you take advantage of the openness, the critics and the straightforwardness of parliamentary debates on global issues and of global concerns, which produce more innovations and creativity than other debates and which delivers what Perikles already was aware 2500 years ago when he stressed, that a tough debate is the most important condition to produce wise decisions;

•    A parliamentary dimension also which would counter criticism expressed towards governments and administrations that they prefer to cooperate with NGO’s and corporations, instead of representatives of democratic power at home.

There are many different ways to start a process to implement a parliamentary dimension within the UN:

•    The UN could address every year, on the basis of several meetings and reports, the existing transnational parliamentary bodies of world regions as the PACE and by doing so would stimulate the creation of such bodies as we know are existing also in Latin-America, Asia and Africa. By the way, the OECD is already doing so with the PACE and the MP’s of our observing states. Japan, Mexico and Canada are participating regularly in this parliamentary screening effort of the OECD.

•    The UN General Assembly could also agree to create a second sister chamber composed by the delegates perhaps not directly elected among Parliamentarians from all member states, such a body would be immediately too big, but of delegates of the transnational Parliamentary bodies of the big world regions, such as the PA of the CoE, Latin America, Africa and Asia. The UN would have to establish proceedings which create duties and obligations for all UN-Institutions to listen and to cooperate with such a Parliamentary Chamber of the UN.

Of course I am aware that such changes need a big political will. The will of the Governments to share power with Parliamentarians also on the transnational level. If this will does not exist the hegemony of Governments on the transnational level would continue to undermine the power of national democracy and national Parliaments.

In the history such a will did only exist after catastrophes in order to prevent new ones. But today we cannot allow us the ambiguous privilege to learn only in the context of catastrophes. That’s why I wish you and us the strength to learn and to reform power structures without a new global catastrophe; this might be much more challenging and perhaps even time-consuming, but its big advantage would be, that nearly all of us would be able to experience the change we need so much for the sake of this unique world and humanity.





Speech at the United Nation’s General Assembly. 20th October 2006 meeting dedicated to the Relations of the UN to regional Organizations such as the Council of Europe. Entwurf.

From Andreas Gross, Swiss MP/PACE

Mrs. Chair, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen

Please let me first express my gratefulness to the government of Switzerland, which allowed me to speak at her place but prevented me to have to speak in its name. I have the honor to address you as a Swiss MP and an active member of the Swiss Delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

I am proud to do this for the second time because following quietly the General Assembly’s deliberations from the sidelines up there ten years ago I found the courage to propose back home to my friends the idea to launch a citizens initiative for Switzerland to join the United Nations and to correct the first negative vote some 20 years ago a political project which as you know turned out to be successful in 2002.

Mrs. Chair

As you know the UN and the Council of Europe are children of the same catastrophic experiences and tried to draw the same lessons from them: They joined the nations forces to establish an intergovernmental political body in order to prevent together for the future what in the past every body alone was too weak to prevent to happen.

The Council of Europe’s ten founding states (Turkey was part of them, Switzerland needed then too a little bit more time) came four years later as the founders of the UN. But they took from the beginning the common introductory reference to our respective founding charters more serious. The CoE translated the reference “We are the People” not only into the forming of a governmental body composed by Ambassadors representing Governments the so called Committee of Ministers - but created also a Parliamentary Assembly of Members of the national Parliaments of the member states, associating by doing so also the directly elected representatives of these Peoples to the supranational political efforts.

The political will of pioneers of the European Integration process was at that time also strong enough to create in Strasburg the European Court for Human Rights, to which since 1959 every citizens of a Council of Europe member-state today nearly 800 million of people in 46, soon 47, states can address complaints against the rulings of their highest national courts when they feel that these did not respect the European Convention for Human Rights. The decisions of the ECHR have to be respected by the authorities of every state a unique creation of a supranational authority. It showed how courageous the European pioneers rightly have been, how far they have been ready to go in order to overcome the atrocities of nation-states not yet civilized by Human Rights and international law.

In the contexts of the last years Council of Europe’s summit one of the 46 foreign Ministers considered the Parliamentary Assembly to be the true engine of the Council Europe. And the Prime Minister of Luxemburg showed this spring in his report, that it was the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE which was much more than others the true defender of the basic values and more courageous and innovative then the bodies of the Institutions. And a report on the institutional balance of the CoE, which was discussed just two weeks ago in the weeklong autumn session of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, our Austrian colleague Peter Schieder, who is also present here today, stated, that it is the first embodiment of the progress of the democratic spirit in the international relations.

I would like to underline that the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE is not a simple annex to a governmental organization which meets only some days in a year, listens to officials and decides on some resolutions. The Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE is a genuine transnational Parliament which meets four times a year for a whole week, works in between in ten committees which meet about six times additionally to the sessions meetings and to which resolutions and recommendations the Committee of Ministers is obliged to answer and to reply. This created not only in over 200 conventions a genuine pan-European space with a common understanding of Human Rights and the rule of law, but also a genuine transnational parliamentary discourse, exchange and learning process, which is able not only to bring legitimacy to transnational law and policy making but is also able to shape directly national legislations and governmental accountability.

Mrs. Chair, ladies and gentlemen

You are certainly aware why I tried to show you the usefulness and the great merits of the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE, of a parliamentary Assembly of an international organization, which was created to represent the Peoples. I would like to propose that we create a working group within the UN GA’s to discuss what lessons we could learn from this successful pan European experience for the introduction of an elaborated parliamentary dimension of the UN:

•    A parliamentary dimension which goes further and is more seriously taken then the one of the OSCE or the NATO which resemble more to the IPU you already know;
•    A parliamentary dimension which is seriously integrated into the structures of the UN, interacts on the bases of especially designed procedures with the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretary General and the other bodies of this great organization and which might provide it with legitimacy only elected MP’s may provide;
•    A parliamentary dimension which let you profit from the openness, the critics and the straightforwardness of parliamentary debates on global issues and of global concerns, which produce more innovations and creativity then other debates and which delivers what Perikles already was aware 2500 years ago when he stressed, that a tough debate is the most important condition to produce wise decisions;
•    A parliamentary dimension also which would counter critics many today express towards governments and administrations that they prefer to cooperate with NGO’s and corporations, because they are much more easy to handle then MP’s who represent general interests, have democratic power at home towards there governments and who are less to be overheard after the first meetings then others who might just not be invited anymore when they would disagree, oppose themselves or ask tough questions.

There are many different ways to start a serious process to implement a serious parliamentary dimension within the UN:

•    The UN could declare to be ready to be accountable every year on the base of several meetings and reports to existing transnational parliamentary bodies of world regions as the PACE and by doing so would stimulate the creation of such bodies as we know are existing also in Latin-American and Asia and Africa. By the way the OECD is already doing so with the PACE and the MP’s our observing countries Japan, Mexico and Canada are participating regularly in this parliamentary screening effort of the OECD.
•    The UN General Assembly could also agree to create a second sister chamber composed by the delegates perhaps not only directly from all member states, such a body would be immediately too big, but of delegates of the transnational Parliamentary bodies of the big world regions, such as the PA of the CoE, Latin America, Africa and Asia and instore proceedings which creates duties and obligations for all UN-Institutions to listen and to cooperate with such a Parliamentary Chamber of the UN.

Of course I am aware that such changes needs a big political will. A will especially of the today privileged UN-States and the Governments to share their power with others and with Parliamentarians also on the transnational level which influences and undermine today always more the power of national democracy and national Parliaments.

A will, which would normally exist only after catastrophes in order to avoid new ones. But such a next catastrophe we should neither wait for nor expect, because it would be so immense, that many would be prevented to learn again like this. That’s why I wish you and us the strength to learn with a new global catastrophe; this might be much more challenging and perhaps even time-consuming, but its big advantage would be, that nearly all of us would be able to experience the change we need so much for the sake of this unique world and humanity.


Andreas Gross